FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 199306000

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

In past contracts, project expenses were sometimes less than the budgeted amount. In these cases project managers would carryover costs from the previous contract to reduce costs of the following contract. This was the case in FY2000; and the FY2001 budget was therefore reduced due to carryover funds from the FY2000 contract. In FY2002 the entire budget was spent out and there were no carryover dollars to apply to the FY2003 contract. The fact that the FY2001 contract was reduced due to carryover and the FY2003 was not reduced due to carryover, combined with the transition into phase 3 of the project, explains most of the increase in cost from FY2001 to FY2003. As a site moves to full capacity production (phase 3) landings resulting from associated fisheries increase. As landings increase funds collected via the voluntary assessment (5% from fishers and prodessors) program also increase, thereby reducing BPA funds required to support Select Area fisheries.

Reason for change in scope

The original contract included three phases for each site. Phase one was intended to determine if the site was suitable, phase two was intended to test the feasibility of establishing net pen rearing sites and associated fisheries, and phase three was intended to establish full capacity rearing and fisheries at sites determined to be suitable in phase two. Several sites have been fully evaluated through phase two of this project. Feasibility tests have been positive and several sites have been targeted for expansion into phase three. The proposal for 2003 reflects moves from phase two to phase three for several of these sites. Expectations for outyears, 2004 and beyond, include additional progress from phase two to phase three at additional sites. Sites that do not show positive results in phase two will be eliminated from the project.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

The purpose of this project is to use hatchery stocks to develop and enhance fisheries in the Lower Columbia River and to use net-pen rearing of wild stocks. The project has been in existence since 1994. The proposal requests $2.3 million for FY2003 and outyear budgets range from $1.7 to $2.0 million. Net-pen sites which have been feasibility tested with positive results are moved into "phase 3", which includes the establishment of additional net pens, expanding production and expanding fisheries. The proposal states that to date little effort has been invested in moving to phase 3, but that now several sites are deemed suitable for this expansion. The project has modified release strategies to minimize straying. Three strategies to eliminate straying are described.

This project is a major deviation from the original statements made about developing terminal fisheries to better protect ESA stocks. Diverting fishing pressure to new locations could be a very effective conservation program (as has apparently been appreciated in past reviews and reports referred to). However, biological concerns about the expansion of these new fisheries will be related to the ultimate magnitude of these releases, their ecological impact and competition with other populations and species, and about the adequacy and accuracy of the assessments conducted. For example, how would you know that 99-100% harvest rates were accomplished in terminal fisheries? A statistically rigorous assessment of these values would require an extensive survey of other populations and habitats, but none of the information is provided. Further, how are the magnitudes of Phase 3 releases determined, what impact is acceptable, and who makes these determinations?

Other concerns noted in the proposal are:

1. Monitoring refers to sampling for coded-wire tags but where are the costs for tagging accounted for and what M&E is actually conducted? The proposal lists tasks but provides no other insights. Further, several objectives in Sections 5,6, and 7 are very expensive without adequate description or justification.
2. Section 9g refers to supporting "two state hatcheries completely" but the budget only includes "In-kind" contributions for these hatcheries. Is BPA paying for the management of these hatcheries or what was meant in that section?
3. An economic analysis should be done on the costs and benefits of this project or portions of it. For example, the development of spring chinook rearing at Tongue Point seems exceedingly expensive for this one location and the investment may be better place in another activity.

While this program has demonstrated success to date, a significant expansion of the releases and fisheries could generate other impacts or issues. An independent monitoring or periodic review of the program (biological assessment and cost effectiveness) may be a recommendation for NWPPC and BPA to consider, and could assist the proponents of the program.

Comment:

Comment:

The project is basically a mitigation program to provide fishing opportunity but the fishery is limited by its potential impact on ESA stocks. The additional information provided in this response does indicate that the project has been operated with care and that they have met the consultative requirements during its development. However, without description of methods or M&E plans (as requested), there is very little to review technically and our comments are largely non-scientific. We cannot conclude from this material that impacts on ESA stocks are minimal (as suggested). The tables provided contain information but there is no discussion of this material (e.g., in Table 7 significant straying of Rogue-stock Fall Chinook is evident, and how is "Wild Impact" determined in Table 10?). Further, while impacts in fisheries seem limited there is no information on the juvenile stage. Juvenile impacts may also be minimal if the juveniles emigrate immediately but this remains unknown and without discussion.

The response does not answer what M&E is being conducted other than referring to CWT costs (that presumably must be covered in some other project). The new Table 1 does clarify budget alignment but neither the table nor Appendix 1 really describe what activities are included in each objective or task. For example, the response does clarify that these funds are operating two hatcheries (Gnat Cr. And Grays River) to produce fish for SAFE ... but this activity is not evident in Table 1 or Appendix 1 (Table 2 does itemize on major task). Attachment 2 notes the economic assessment suggested by the ISRP but does not note when it will be completed or whether it will be publicly available. Appendix 2 is interesting background, but leaves one major question in our minds ... is there any ultimate production limit or goal for this program. As the scale of this program grows the risk of impacts must increase. If we continue to accept the evaluation of impacts based on adult fishery sampling, how do we know that this is not after the impact at the juvenile stage? The proponents of this project do seem well intentioned, but the project is too open ended and without defined limits.

In summary, the response provides more complete information in many areas but important questions remain unanswered. The response does not explicitly address how the magnitude of production increases is determined or how those increases are evaluated for acceptability. Given past and continuing levels of investment in this activity, more critical assessment and reporting are required.

How is "maximum production" of various stocks in various sites determined? What is the content of the economic analysis being done by Radtke? What will it include? How will the results of the economic analysis affect decisions about whether or how to expand the fisheries? How will the effect of expansion on ESA stocks be monitored? How was the estimate of $49 million contribution to the West Coast economy calculated?

Comment:

Comments
Close evaluation should precede expansion of the SAFE project to avoid any increased risk to listed fish. Project 31031 notes a high number of strays into local streams; would expansion exacerbate?

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

Comment:

Comment:

Columbia Lower Issue 1: Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project (Project 199306000)

Council Recommendation: In 1993, Bonneville initiated the Columbia River Terminal Fisheries Project (now named the Select Area Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) project), a 10-year comprehensive program to investigate the feasibility of terminal fisheries in Youngs Bay and other sites in Oregon and Washington. This cooperative project between the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Clatsop County Economic Development Council's (CEDC) Fisheries Project explored the means to increase harvest of hatchery fish while providing greater protection to weak wild salmon stocks. The project developed in three distinct stages: an initial two-year research phase to investigate potential sites, salmon stocks, and methodologies; a second three- year phase of expansion in Youngs Bay and introduction into areas of greatest potential as shown from the initial work; and a final five-year phase of establishing terminal fisheries at full capacity at all acceptable sites. Currently, the project is in the third phase.

The project received a "Fundable in Part" recommendation from the ISRP. The ISRP supported the ongoing activities but did not support any expansion of the project due to lack of scientific and economic justifications. The ISRP stated that before any additional investment into the expansion of this project an economic analysis and a determination of potential impact on listed stocks should be conducted. CBFWA rated the projects as High Priority.

Bonneville recommended funding the project for the implementation of RPA 164 (Harvest Strategy 1: Develop fishing techniques to enable fisheries to target non- listed fish while reducing harvest-related mortality on ESA- listed species) and recommended that the funding of the project be conditioned on the submittal of delinquent annual reports. In addition, Bonneville concurred with the ISRP regarding the current scope, though they mentioned the excessive costs associated with the project.

NOAA Fisheries indicated that there is no association of this project to the Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System and stated "close evaluation of this project is needed before any expansion to avoid any risk to listed fish."

Council staff concurs with the findings of the ISRP, Bo Bonneville and NOAA and supports no expansion of the production associated with the project. Funding for Fiscal Year 2003, 2004 and 2005 reflects no expansion of the project, but applies the 3.4% rule. Funds were provided in Fiscal Year 2003 to relocate a net pen at Tongue Point. This reflects a one-time cost of $71,000 to relocate the net pen from a leased area where the project has lost the ability to lease the location, to a new dock.

Funding associated with Fiscal Year 2003 will address the tenth and final year of the feasibility study. The Council needs to receive a final report regarding this project summarizing and evaluating the findings and conclusions of this investigation regarding the feasibility of terminal fisheries in the lower Columbia. This report needs to be comprehensive and must address the current dynamics in the commercial fisheries such as the market, the economic value of the fisheries made possible through this project, and the value to the industry of this project in the context of all other fishing opportunities and activities in the lower Columbia and Estuary that the industry now has available. At the conclusion of the tenth season the information and data collected to date will need to be summarized and analyzed with the report submitted in Fiscal Year 2004. Activities associated with this final report and project review needs to occur within the budget proposed in the staff recommendation. If there is a budget shortfall, sponsors will need to prioritize tasks from within budget to ensure completion of these final report activities.

The staff recommended that the project sponsors' final report be reviewed by both the ISRP and the IEAB during Fiscal Year 2004, and that future funding for this proposal (i.e. Fiscal Year 2005) is conditioned on a favorable review by these advisory boards and the Council. The Council deferred a recommendation on this project at its September meeting. The Council noted the substantial investment in this project that has been made, and has questions about the economic value of the project to the commercial fishing industry that it utilizing it. Sponsors and supporters of the project provided the Council with economic information and testimony at the October meeting. After considering this information, the Council recommends funding for the project subject to the conditions set forth above.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website